"Let's face it: Google did the minimized-UI, super-fast-to-start browser with Chrome," Eich wrote. "However good Firefox gets by those two measures, we have to (and I believe that we will) distinguish ourselves in other, deeper ways against Google and other browser vendors, who have different missions or agendas from Mozilla's."

Exactly. Mozilla's agenda is to provide the best browser from a user's perspective, and to "open the web".

Mozilla's mission is to promote openness, innovation, and opportunity on the web. We do this by creating great software, like the Firefox browser, and building movements, like Drumbeat, that give people tools to take control of their online lives.

As a non-profit organization, we define success in terms of building communities and enriching people’s lives instead of benefiting our shareholders (guess what: we don’t even have shareholders). We believe in the power and potential of the Internet and want to see it thrive for everyone, everywhere.

Google make their fortune by providing an admittedly good service, but then inserting relatively unobtrusive ads targetted as far as possible at each user. In order to target ads, Google collects metrics about each user. Google has a direct pervading interest in users being unable to filter out ads.

Safari (via Apple) seems to have an agenda to try to push DRM, to take down Flash and to force the exclusive use of proprietary audio and video codecs on the web, and to effectively ban, disparage or suppress open codecs such as Vorbis, Theora and WebM.

IE used to have an agenda (most recently embodied in Silverlight) that people would need to run specifically IE on Windows in order to get a "full experience" on the web. Perhaps now, late in the game, they have moved away from that, but it is way too late and they have already caused enormous damage.

I'll leave it up to the users to work out which agenda best aligns with the said user's own best interests.